 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Disciplinary Bd. v. Overboe (In re Overboe), No. 20060301,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported filing of an Application for Interim Suspension of an attorney where there was substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public, N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 3.4(A), as the attorney committed sexual misconduct and used his position as an attorney to exploit female clients; an interim suspension of the attorney was ordered.
|
|||||
| Edison v. A Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Bd. of the N.D. Supreme Court (In re Edison) , No. 20060091,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if attorney's conduct did not rise to level of intent to mislead or deceive opposing attorney, a reprimand was proper under N.D. Stand. Imposing Law. Sanctions 5.13 because evidence established than amended answer constituted a statement known to be false under N.D. Prof'l Conduct 4.1 and a misrepresentation under N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 1.2A(3).
|
|||||
| Stensland v. Stensland, No. 20060299,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days and ordered, inter alia, to complete three CLE hours in the area of ethics where a hearing panel concluded that his conduct in filing a bankruptcy petition violated N.D. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.3 and 8.4, as well as N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 1.2(a)(2), (3), and (8).
|
|||||
| Aga v. Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20060185,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an employee's reapplication for disability benefits was appropriate because, while he was entitled to subpoena his doctors or to present telephonic testimony from his doctors under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 28-32-33 and 28-32-35, he nevertheless relied on written opinions from his doctors without any further elaboration.
|
|||||
| Griggs v. Fisher, No. 20060180,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint against defendants for rescission of contract was affirmed; plaintiff's claim failed because she did not move the trial court for a directed verdict under N.D. R. Civ. P. 50 or for a new trial under N.D. R. Civ. P. 59.
|
|||||
| Weisenburger v. R.S. (In the Interest of R.S.), No. 20060318,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Involuntary commitment order was upheld because a patient was a person requiring treatment under N.D. Cent. Code § 25-03.1-02(12) where the evidence showed that he entered a police station armed with a gun, he had routine fears that people were out to get him, he imagined that microphones were in his home, and he was fearful of answering the phone.
|
|||||
| Lawrence v. Delkamp, No. 20060136,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action brought by mother to hold father in contempt for failing to pay child support, court erred in denying father hearing under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-10-01.3(1)(a) on both parties' motions for contempt because before father received court's decision denying his motion, he dilatorily acted under N.D. R. Ct. 3.2 and noticed hearing on his motion.
|
|||||
| State v. Wardner, No. 20060014,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-02(11), a presentence investigation in case of gross sexual imposition was conducted before sentencing, and the statute was complied with. Finding of probation violation was proper where defendant attended church without having required probation authorities review his safety plan and the sentence was proper.
|
|||||
| Pryatel v. R.F. (In the Interest of R.F.), No. 20060362,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
